>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
“We realize we can’t pull fiber into the living unit every time,” says Brian Whitton, executive director of Access Network Design and Integration with Verizon. In those cases, Verizon installs a special MDU ONT in the basement of the building that serves multiple units. The last few feet are usually covered by the building’s coax wiring. In instances where this can’t be done, Verizon uses VDSL.

How much the network performance is compromised depends on the unit’s distance from the ONT and the type of wiring used. “We’ve done testing in the Empire State Building. With VDSL1, we can deliver 30 Mbit/s and with VDSL2 we can deliver 75 Mbit/s,” says Whitton.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

No TV? Just call the guy and yell – he’s round the street corner, anyway. It works just fine – no ‘customer care’ representative, no waiting all day for the service tech to show up. That’s capitalism in action – in comparison, big telco’s are socialist empires.

I would guess that coax in an MDU would be a lot trickier given it must be shared (it might even be owned by) the cableco. There also may not be home runs of coax to the wiring closet.

Coax would be preferred because it makes sending the video a whole lot easier. But I bet the infrastructure headaches in an MDU situation offset this.

in an interview with Verizon representetives they claim that in older buildings ,they would rather use special MDU ONTs and link each apartment via coax. VDSL is their last choice . Any idea why they prefer coax, even though a trial conducted using VDSL2 in the empire state building showed a rate of 75Mbps?
Perhaps the fact they chose MOCA for home network wiring played a role?

PON eliminates all of the active electronics between the demac and the CO. It is attractive to the Telcos because of low OPEX and appears to be infinitely upgradeable.

I’ve heard the patch panel hell story for the CO but it sounds like nonsense to me. Going from copper to PON reduces the overall cable count by a factor of 32, and the cables themselves (fiber) are smaller & lighter. GOing to WDM PON to reduce it further seems like a lot of technology for relatively little incremental gain.

CPE power is another hoary chestnut. Apartment complexes already have UPS installed for emergency lighting, and anyway in many countries there’s no point trying to call in the first place :-) WDM reduces patch panel hell on the CO side, & it can be coarse to start with.

assuming a carrier links a MDU with 60 apartments with FTTH. Can it deploy a limited amount( lets say 2-3 lines) of fibre from the central office to the basement, and from there simply deploy optic fibres, one for each unit equipped with an ONT?
If yes, the load on those 2-3 cables connecting the splitter to the central office should be pretty big. In that case, WDM makes sense also as an access technology???

Is that what the term “WDM-PON” refers to ?

I probably mixed up some technical terms but the basic idea is: deploy less fiber from the central office to the basement, and use WDM to deal with the fiber exhaust.

thanks

1. Bandwidth is not cheap. It’s getting cheaper but thats not the same as cheap.
2. PON has nothing to do with the US, and was installed in Japan in quantity well before it was here.
3. Apartment towers are best suited for VDSL and Ethernet backhaul. If fiber is in place WDM never makes sense. So far, WDM only is economical if you have fiber exhaust.
4. PON has nothing to do with backhaul. BT is looking at WDM PON with backhaul, but it’s still PON.